COMPLIANCE INFO_1987-1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

STEPHEN CHEN -2- 5 July 1989 depth were the samples taken, and how was this depth chosen? Were the boreholes logged, and if so, where are the logs? 6. In the section "Comparison With Regulatory Standards And Criteria" , you state that levels of electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids in wells MW-1 and MW-3 exceeded MCL criteria, but it does not appear that these constituents are landfill related. What is your rationale for this conclusion? What other sources could have caused these increases? We have also reviewed the Verification Monitoring Plan submitted with the SWAT Report. Our comments are as follows: 1. The well logs for on-site wells 44 and 45 are included in Appendix C of the report. Please send us any documentation you have regarding the abandonment of these two wells. Confirmation of the abandonment, or lack thereof, should be part of the verification plan as these wells could be possible conduits for contamination to lower aquifers. 2. In the calibration of the cone penetrometer test (CPT) a soil boring is proposed. A continuous core boring should be specified. After the boring is drilled, will the hole be grouted, or cased as a monitoring well? If it is to be cased, the design of the monitoring well must be submitted for our review. 3. Phase two of the plan includes Hydropunch sampling of the first two sand zones. Selection of only the first two sand zones is based on the hypothesis that direct vertical seepage of leachate has impacted only the first sand zone. Does this hypothesis take into account the possible downward migration of contamination through the water supply well? This possible downward migration could have impacted the second sand zone. If there has been an impact to the second sand zone, the third sand zone must also be investigated. The depth of the third zone may preclude the use of Hydropunch because of its depth restrictions. Some thought should be given to the means of investigating the third zone if it is necessary. 4. Stage two of phase two includes approximately four Hydropunch samplings to determine if VOCs are migrating towards Austin Road Landfill from the Forward Inc. Landfill. This stage should include a review of the monitoring reports and boring logs submitted to the Board by Forward Inc. These reports are public record, and can be reviewed during working hours at our office. 5. A tentative time schedule for completion of phases one and two should be included in the verification plan. This schedule should include dates for the submittal of progress reports detailing actions taken to date, and future actions to be taken. These progress reports are to be submitted at the end of each phase. Phase three need not be included in the time schedule as it is impossible to estimate the